I WANT A NEW DRUG [535]

I had the hope that, if I visit a store in a foreign country selling DVDs and Blu-rays, I will find something obscure and intriguing. In Belgium, that certainly did happen, but two facts became apparent: no film company is obliged to offer English subtitles if they are not selling to an English-language country, and if you happen across the Brussels branch of HMV, their stock is the same as their UK stores, except labelled as “UK Import”.

Fortunately for me, the French distributor Carlotta Films had released an American film from 1989 that I have only ever heard about, its name promising an interesting journey. “Dr Caligari”, directed by Stephen Sayadian and co-written with Jerry Stahl, is a loose remake of the German Expressionist horror film “The Cabinet of Dr Caligari” (1920), turning it into a surreal, postmodern erotic horror, a descendent of the original doctor conducting chemical experiments to balance out the psychoses of her patients. Capturing the “midnight movie” crowd that loved Sayadian and Stahl’s previous films, the pornographic “Nightdreams” (1981) and “Café Flesh” (1985), “Dr Caligari” disappeared after its theatrical run, save for limited, sporadic releases on home video - this was the first time I had come across a copy I could buy.

The art direction and the acting in “Dr Caligari” are most definitely surreal. The setting is like a more adult version of Tim Burton’s film “Beetlejuice”, but with more vivid colours, geometric shapes and angles, reminding me of Memphis furniture once again. The acting is highly theatrical and choreographed, the result of a four-week rehearsal period: stylised and emphasised poses are held, no-one allowed to just sit or stand naturally, actors are often brought into and out of shots on platforms and turntables, and movement is also simulated by moving backgrounds.

I had wondered if “Dr Caligari”, with its strange performances and themes of fantasy and erotica, with scenes of nudity and gore - a Hollywood writer’s strike during the film’s production meant its sub-$200,000 budget could stretch to special effects artists and actors that wouldn’t have otherwise been available - was deliberately made to appeal to an audience that wanted to see something wild and screwed up. I think you can consider it to be a surreal work, thought it might be up to the viewer as to whether the “s” should be capitalised – the art direction is not a gloss on a standard Hollywood script, there is symbolic use of wounds, tongues and televisions, and there is a sense of this film working within its own reality, while also commenting on how our reality “fixes” people.

Even if so, the film is so identifiably a work by Stephen Sayadian, also its production designer and art director, record as saying it needed to attract the “midnight movie” crowd to be a success. In his work as a creative director for “Hustler” magazine, in charge of advertising, the editor of the satirical magazine “Slam”, the films “Nightdreams” and “Café Flesh”, the video for Wall of Voodoo’s version of the Beach Boys song “Do It Again”, and “Jackie Charge”, a “midnight movie” style play – all of which were either written or co-written with Jerry Stahl, who would also write scripts for TV shows as disparate as “ALF” and “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”, reveal similarities in performance and production design. Sayadian has also said it made sense to hire himself as production designer on “Dr Caligari”, as hiring anyone else would have taken up a substantial fraction of the overall budget. “Dr Caligari” director of photography Ladi von Jansky also shot print advertisements with Sayadian, informing further the held poses and stylised motion.

I was happy to see a film that was unlike most I have seen, but if I wish to look up the remainder of Stephen Sadayian’s catalogue, I will need to remember that the even-more-adult “Nightdreams” and “Café Flesh” were released under the pseudonym “Rinse Dream”.

WEARILY, WE COME UNWOUND [490]

Detail from "Cut with the Kitchen Knife by Hannah Höch (1920) 

This is either the beginning of a discussion, or the opening of Pandora’s box.

 

At the time of writing, in March 2025, it doesn’t feel like things are going very well, in a redrawing-of-world-order, not-knowing-what-tomorrow-brings kind of way. Moments like this are usually met with reason, but old certainties are not what they were, and something must take that place. 

 

Writing about how things work, or how they don’t work, is not working for me right now, so having my mind turn to the history of art for answers from a hundred years ago was what happened.

 

Dada and Surrealism are two movements linked by their European conceptual base, their rejection of realist form, the former movement having led to the latter, and by my having liked work from both. Tapping into a different source of energy, and tapping out of the usual ways of thinking, is what I feel I need to remain vital right now, in the marketplace of ideas.

 

I previously used Dada to assess the apparent performance artistry in politics in 2017, an irony in comparison with Dada’s emergence as a rejection of the reason that brought the First World War - its formation by displaced foreigners in politically-neutral Switzerland, at the first Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich, underlines the serious strength under which the sound poetry, photo-montage and satirical publications arose. If a deranged world demands sense, it should not have it.

 

I have also discussed a Surrealist painting, Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory”, although its use of imagery and signifiers was secondary to commenting on how its endless reproduction belies how small the roughly A4 paper-sized painting really is. Surrealism, mostly because of the proliferation of Dali’s work – although Rene Magritte, he of “ceci n’est pas un pipe”, runs him close – is more easily accessible than Dada, contradicting reality rather than combatively challenging it. 

 

Why am I doing this? Objective truth has taken a back seat to truthiness, and people don’t need one more person to point out what they can already see – besides that, I have already trodden that route many times. I need subjectivity and abstraction for myself, almost as a prism to make things look normal again. I also need to have fun, and if the world wants to have its fun with you, you should be free to reciprocate – fortunately for me, I want to do that artistically.

 

The reason I feel I must choose between Dada and Surrealism, rather than just picking what works best for me, was having listened to what I thought was a good point made by the art critic Louisa Buck in “Lobster Telephone”, a 2024 episode of BBC Radio 4’s “Archive on 4” strand that marked the hundredth anniversary of Surrealism:

 

“But the true Dadaist is against Dada, because Dada was against everything, it was against rationality, it was against this mechanised war that would cause all this bloodshed and destruction. How could you like civilisation? How could you like authority? How could you like society? So the Dadaists were against everything, they were nihilistic, so Dada sort of had to die, because a real anti-movement couldn’t be a movement, so it became systematised into Surrealism.”

 

With the show’s presenter Matthew Sweet, Buck agreed that Surrealism is what you do if you are a Dadaist who wants a work structure with rules and a manifesto. Dada had its own manifestoes, including Tristan Tzara’s 1918 manifesto that couldn’t reconcile its own being: “I write a manifesto and I want nothing, yet I say certain things, and in principle I am against manifestoes, as I am also against principles...”

 

I am not sure I want a rigid structure. I want spontaneity, the ability to change the form in which I am working. When I have made videos, the subject dictates the format: I may present to camera, I may not appear, or I may not say anything. The need is to express without impediment, as Jonathan Meades said in his 2001 television film, “suRREAL FILM”, after attempting to define the word “surrealism”:

 

“It does mean bizarre, but the tame end of bizarre. The Surrealists of the Twenties and Thirties took the bizarre out of the wild and incarcerated it in a zoo. They domesticated feral instinct, expunged the savagery, and sought to keep it for themselves and their precious movement. When of course the irrational really belongs to all of us, to all ages, but not all cultures.”

 

So, what I need is just to express myself, and see where it leads me. To be honest, Dada has direction, and Surrealism is oddly more prescriptive, but my actively thinking about either of these means I have arrived at the need for a new approach, just as Meades said that Surrealism “merely connotes a twenty year or so span of the eternal human urge to replicate the reality that is achieved in dreams and in cerebral afflictions where reason absents itself.”

 

A DREAM THAT WOULD MAKE YOU SCREAM [452]

Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí’s Surrealist short film “Un Chien Andalou” – or “Sunshine and the Loo”, as YouTube’s voice-activated search misheard my many requests – was first premièred in Paris on 6th June 1929. Deliberately conceived to have scenes and imagery that defy rational explanation, it became a classic of the Surrealist movement officially founded five years earlier, while its images, from the famous cutting of a woman’s eye with a razor, to a man dragging two pianos and two priests, being endlessly referenced and reproduced.

However, the act of watching “Unchain on the Moon” makes you try to resolve those images into a semblance of order. That is not the fault of the film - it is simply how the mind processes what you see. Your mind demands an explanation when the images themselves were conceived with no need of one. I previously wrote about pareidolia, where the mind perceives familiar patterns in something where there is none, and where the lyrics of Sir Elton John’s deliberately nonsensical song “Solar Prestige a Gammon” still conveyed a “life carries on” meaning in its performance.

But “And She and Do” is a film, of course, and the language of “continuity editing”, as popularised by the Classical Hollywood era that was still getting underway in 1929, will have its effect on your perception, just as my perception of Dalí’s painting “The Persistence of Memory” were changed by seeing how small it is in real life. My dreams have “continuity editing”, such is the cultural consensus on how film language is read by an audience that doesn’t need to learn to “write” it. The forming of scenes and sequences, cuts and fades under agreed patterns of editing, to define the film’s mise en scène, are then expected to work in every case, so it is perhaps no wonder that the intertitles of “And on the loop” must be used to obfuscate its timeline, declaring “eight years later”, “around three in the afternoon” or “sixteen years ago”, even when the scene does not change.

Real time has perhaps not worked in favour of “Union and You”, especially as Dalí reused and commodified his imagery – ants were a symbol of decay for Dalí, but they now symbolise Dalí. The film he and Buñuel made was meant to provoke and offend, but its favourable reception on its première was itself offensive to Dalí, and I would put that down to “Ed Sheeran and blue” being rendered conventional by the collective notion of what a film is – it being colourised and cut down to a two-minute interstitial for “MTV in the Eye” in the late 1980s ensured any intended shock value was truly mislaid, despite leaving all the famous images intact, and making for one of the few times the music of Richard Wagner was played on MTV.